Anon

Strykers Refurbished After Iraq
Strategy Page
January 11, 2006: The U.S. Army’s new Stryker wheeled armored vehicle has been in Iraq for over two years now. The first Stryker brigade left its 299 Stryker vehicles in Iraq, when the troops finished their one year tour. Now, after two years, those vehicles are being brought home and refurbished. Seven percent of the vehicles got banged up pretty bad, mostly by roadside bombs. These had to be rebuilt.

Those 299 Strkyers averaged about 24,000 kilometers a year. Some put in close to 110,000 kilometers. Military wheeled vehicles operating in that part of the world are in need of refurbishment after about 50,000 kilometers. The refurbishment for the Strykers involves a new set of tires, new drive train and transmission. Any other equipment that got banged up or worn out will be repaired or replaced. Vehicles are repainted as needed. The electronics in each vehicle will be upgraded. The Strykers are the first of a new generation of “digital” vehicles. That means networking, computers and the ability to exchange digital data with other vehicles and troops equipped with wireless networking gear. In effect, a battlefield Internet. This stuff survived remarkably well in Iraq, despite the heat, dust, vibration and heavy use by the troops. The entire refurbishment process takes about twenty days per vehicle.

This was the first combat experience for the Strykers, and they performed quite well. Like most new military vehicles, they received a lot of criticism for being too expensive, too fragile, too heavy, too big and unsuited to the task. But the troops who used the Strykers liked them, and the vehicles proved to be more effective than any alternatives (more heavily armored M-2 Bradley’s, or armored hummers.)
www.strategypage.com/htmw...60111.aspx

Shek

StrategyPage is 1-2 months behind the power curve

While I post on the site, I rarely read the articles anymore - it's more like a tabloid.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4210045&EDATE=

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/m...-4883967c.html

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

drkfce

Has this article improved your view of the stryker, Mr. M21sniper, sir?

Personally, I am glad, that the strykers have lived up to, if not slightly surpassd, their expected performance.

Gun Grape

I don't think any of the long time posters over there pay any attention to the articles. And just about all have complained.

Maybe you could ask Braddock to join WAB. Wouldn't that be fun.

Horrido

Okay, GG, now that you've set-off this mod's klaxons, care to explain?

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

Shek

Braddock is a self-deluded individual with whom I antagonize. While often frustrating, it's also entertaining because you never know what BS he'll make up next.

TopHatter

I know I'll probably regret this...

....but he sounds like a lot of fun.


Edit: After very careful consideration - and a smack upside the head delivered by a certain leatherneck, I'm going to retract that last statement.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Shek

Go to StrategyPage.com and check out posts written by Braddock, BraddockCaesar, and YoungDon. He's an idiot.

TopHatter

Yeah, that was the smack upside the head....and hence my retraction.

Shek

It was fun for a while, but then it got old, and my only purpose was to ensure that people saw him for the fraud that he is. Feel free to join in on the group smackdowns of him.

TopHatter

Oh good lord, I wouldn't be able to do squat in that category.

Most of my detailed knowledge (that's using the term rather loosely) is in warships in general and battleships in particular.

Wraith601

I've find myself spending most of my time in the Austrailan forum these days over at StrategyPage. Armor has been dead since the last round of Stryker vs. M113 threads died.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Anon

My beef is that the stryker couldn't do what it was stated they would do. Ultimately the specification was no more than a lie to justify a need for a new vehicle to begin with. The cold truth is we don't need the stryker, and it is highly arguable that they were worth any expenditure when viewed against other army programs and needs. If this was a need we truly had regular USMC LAV-25s with slat armor would have been a hell of a lot cheaper while delivering 90+% of the capibility, while bringing a 25mm weapons system into the fight. An even better alternative would've been to spend the money on a few more fast transport ships, or failing that, more USAF C-17s. But no service ever wants to either rely or hand over it's budget dollars to another force.

To me when the Army says 'the air force cant move us' this does not justify a new army vehicle, it justifies a larger USAF AMC budget, and more airframes. For the total cost of the stryker program the USAF could've bought quite a few C-17s, and the Army could've still gotten a couple Bdes worth of legacy LAV-25s with the slat armor, or just upgraded a boatload of M-113A3s. To me, the need for stryker was never real, let alone justified.

For COIN work the Strykers are absolutely good to go- if not somewhat underarmed- i've never stated otherwise anywhere.

For high intensity conflicts the stryker is relegated to a much more peripheral role though. The Brad is a much better vehicle for that sort of fighting(ie mainforce engagements, etc), i don't think anyone would dispute that.

Stryker is what it is, and it flat out cost too much to get there IMO. Just one guy's opinion...but it's an honest one.

I would like the Stryker a hell of a lot more if it did what was actually originally specified. Be readily deployable on rough forward strips from C-130s.
We really could use that ability, but again...to me...you're better off coming into the same strip with C-17s and bringing in your frontline stuff. Ie, i think we need more widebody airplanes. Lots more.

TopHatter

Don't forget the other 2 bennies that come with buying LAV-25s for the Army:

Commonality of parts and training. Which translates into $$$ over time.

Anon

I've made that point in numerous other Stryker debates. Same holds true for the 113s, even moreso, it was already completely supported and integrated into the US Army, and has been for decades. There are a lot of grandfathers around that could still fix an M-113, lol. They're very simple, reliable, and highly adaptable.

If ya gotta have wheels, the LAV-25 with the digital gadgetry retrofitted in is still a better choice IMO. The M-2 main armament of the Stryker is hardly ideal. Fine for COIN, pretty damned inadequate for main-force type ops.